Back
Stays Arrest of Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in Ram Temple Donation Theft Case
The on Tuesday stepped in to protect journalist Abhishek Upadhyay from arrest, staying all in connection with a road-rage FIR that the journalist claims was filed in retaliation for his exposé on the alleged theft of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant directed that no coercive steps be taken against Upadhyay not only in the present FIR but also in any future FIR that may be registered in relation to the same incident.
The order comes as a significant reprieve for the journalist, who had moved the apex court challenging the FIR lodged at Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad on . The complaint invoked provisions of the and the , a move that Upadhyay’s counsel described as a “” to silence his reporting.
Background: The Ram Temple Donation Exposé
Upadhyay was among the first journalists to report on irregularities in the counting and handling of donations at the . His reporting highlighted how staff were allegedly siphoning cash offerings during the counting process. The Uttar Pradesh government subsequently constituted a , which in its preliminary report found 70 instances of counting staff hiding bundles of notes and loose cash in their clothes and pockets.
The SIT flagged systemic lapses—inadequate frisking, poor monitoring of CCTV footage, and weak supervision—and noted that surveillance recordings were preserved for only 45 days, hampering the investigation. The controversy led to a leadership reshuffle at the Trust, with general secretary Champat Rai and trustee Anil Mishra resigning in July.
The FIR and the Alleged Road-Rage Incident
According to the FIR, a motorcyclist alleged that his bike was hit by a Baleno car near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad on . The complainant claimed the driver abused and threatened him, naming Upadhyay as the driver. The journalist, however, categorically denies the incident. In his petition, Upadhyay states he was returning from his daughter’s school when a motorcyclist approached his car and created a commotion. He contends there was no collision or physical confrontation and that he left the spot to avoid escalation, as his daughter was present.
Upadhyay’s petition points to discrepancies: the registered number of the motorcycle mentioned in the FIR belongs to a different bike, and the complainant is not the registered owner. He further alleges that police personnel pressured nearby shopkeepers to delete or withhold CCTV footage from the area. His counsel, , who also serves as President of the Bar Association, submitted that the CCTV footage would prove the allegations baseless.
’s Observations and Order
During the hearing, Rai argued that Upadhyay’s “unpardonable sin” was exposing the Ayodhya donation scam. He highlighted that multiple FIRs had been registered against the journalist following his investigative reports, and a police team of about a dozen personnel had raided his home on while he was away, leaving his wife and two daughters frightened.
The bench, while acknowledging Upadhyay’s “,” did not express any view on the truth of the allegations. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that if a motorist had indeed collided with a motorcycle and then used casteist slurs, the conduct could warrant investigation. However, the court focused on ensuring .
The order read: “Issue notice. Returnable on . Meanwhile, no shall be taken against the petitioner in the FIR already registered or in such FIR that may be registered against him. Similarly, let a copy of the FIR … be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to avail remedy. As soon as copies of FIR received, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Allahabad HC. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, shall file a .”
Legal Community and Press Freedom Implications
The ’s intervention is being closely watched by legal professionals and media rights advocates. The case underscores the vulnerability of investigative journalists who expose corruption involving powerful political and religious institutions. Upadhyay’s petition explicitly links the criminal proceedings to his reporting on the Ram Temple trust and other alleged administrative improprieties in Uttar Pradesh, including a report on an IAS officer’s land purchases.
By extending protection to any future FIR arising out of the same occurrence, the court has effectively shielded Upadhyay from a pattern of . This aligns with earlier judgments warning against to harass journalists and whistleblowers.
The order also highlights the procedural requirement of supplying an FIR copy promptly—a right established in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (). The court’s directive for a ensures accountability.
Next Steps
With the FIR copy now to be provided, Upadhyay can approach the for . His petition also sought, in the alternative, transfer of investigation to the or another independent agency. The matter returns to the on , by which time the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner must file a compliance affidavit.
Upadhyay, reacting to the order, called it a “big victory” and asserted on social media: “The pen will neither bend nor stop.” The case is a reminder that the judiciary remains a critical safeguard against the to stifle dissent and reporting in the public interest.
Conclusion
The ’s on arrest sends a strong signal that investigative journalism—especially when it exposes misappropriation of public donations—cannot be met with retaliatory FIRs. While the merits of the road-rage allegations remain to be tested, the court’s emphasis on and protection from reinforces . Legal observers will await the ’s decision on and the to see if the police adhere to the court’s directives.
